Council Panel OKs a Revised Ethics Package : Politics: The compromise is passed after some ‘significant changes.’ Members are trying to head off a threatened citizens’ initiative.

New support for a city ethics proposal emerged Thursday as a City Council committee approved a compromise package and sent it to the full council for a vote next week.

The compromise would restrict--rather than ban--outside income for public officials, establish public financing for political campaigns and prohibit lobbying by former officials for a year after they leave office.

The proposal glided through the council’s Ad Hoc Committee on Ethics Thursday with the unexpected endorsement of Councilwoman Ruth Galanter, who had been its most vocal critic.

Galanter’s refusal to support the sweeping ethics package had been viewed by its sponsors as a considerable obstacle to its passage. She was particularly unhappy about the proposed ban on all outside earned income, a provision that was softened in order to win her support.

“They have, in fact, made significant changes from their original proposal,” Galanter said Thursday.

“We want to be protective of the public trust and of the people who serve in positions to carry it out,” she said. “What they’ve come around to is a pretty fair method of doing that.”

The committee, chaired by Councilman Michael Woo, approved the lengthy and detailed proposal in a 3-0 vote Thursday.

Councilwoman Gloria Molina was the third vote, but she said she intends to offer an amendment on the council floor to give the new city ethics commission its own legal staff. Molina said she was “troubled” by provisions that make it necessary for the commission to rely on the city attorney’s office.

The compromise measure was worked out by Woo and Geoffrey Cowan, head of the mayor’s ethics commission.

The council is attempting to head off a threatened citizens’ initiative that would encompass the wide-ranging recommendations of the ethics-in-government commission appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley a day after his narrow election victory last spring.

Cowan said Wednesday that if the council approves the compromise substantially intact, there will be no citizens’ initiative. Instead, the council can retain control of the controversial ethics issue by putting its own proposal on the June ballot.

But all three committee members said Thursday they expect a flurry of amendments to be offered on the council floor next week.

One problem area may be the public financing proposal, which could cost the city as much as $23 million over four years, according to a report distributed Thursday by the city’s administrative office.

“It’s a startling amount of money,” said Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, chairman of the council’s Budget and Finance Committee.

Yaroslavsky said he will vote against the campaign financing portion of the measure and predicted that portion will be taken out.

“Public financing was a speculative proposition anyway,” he said.

Yaroslavsky said the $23-million figure “is the equivalent of over 100 police officers a year or eight new paramedic units. This is a luxury that very few would have the temerity to endorse.”

The proposal passed Thursday “is not the final product by any stretch of the imagination,” he said.

HIGHLIGHTS OF PROPOSED ETHICS REFORM

Here are highlights of the ethics reform package approved Thursday by a City Council committee: Restrictions on outside employment, including a ban on working for firms that are located in or do business with the city of Los Angeles.

Establishment of a five-member city ethics commission to rule on possible conflicts of interest and grant permission for limited types of outside jobs. The mayor will appoint two members and the city attorney, the president of the City Council and the city controller will appoint one each.

Partial public financing of political campaigns. Council candidates could get up to $133,000 for a primary race and $200,000 for a general election, but must limit spending to $400,000. A mayoral candidate could get as much as one-third matching funds for a primary race and one-half for a general election, but could spend no more than $2 million per race.

A limit of $25,000 on “officeholder accounts,” the currently limit-free funds set up by elected officials for a wide range of purposes.

A ban on honorariums and most gifts and free trips.

A one-year ban on lobbying by former elected officials and top administrators.

Disclosure of exact amounts of income and investments, including the price of a home bought while in office or within a year of taking office.

Disclosure of home improvements of $10,000 or more while in office or within a year of taking office.

A prohibition against delivering campaign contributions to City Hall or any city office building.